SAHA (San Antonio Housing Authority) to ban smoking in public housing

San Antonio Express News ^ | 07/27/2011 | Karisa King

[Responsibility2nd]

To the list of places where smokers no longer will be able to light up — government buildings, parks, restaurants and bars — public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes.

The San Antonio Housing Authority plans to impose a new policy in January that will prohibit residents from smoking indoors or away from designated outdoor spots at all 70 of its public sites.

The ban, which will affect about 15,800 residents, aims to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and follows a growing nationwide trend to eliminate smoking at public housing authorities.

Since 2009, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a directive that “strongly” encouraged housing authorities to adopt nonsmoking policies, the number of agencies that have banned the practice has more than doubled to an estimated 250, according to the Smoke Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan nonprofit that tracks the number.

San Antonio will become the biggest housing authority in Texas and one of the largest in the country to adopt a smoking ban, joining other major agencies in Boston, Detroit, Portland and Seattle.

“It’s our responsibility to provide a living environment that’s healthy, safe and comfortable and, frankly, your neighbor’s smoke can often impair that,” said Melanie Villalobos, a spokeswoman for SAHA.

The no-smoking rule will debut here in August or September at the newly renovated Lewis Chatham Apartments, a single, four-story building for the elderly on the South Side.

SAHA’s other properties are expected to go smoke-free in January, but the details of how the new policy will work at each site, including the locations of designated smoking areas, remain undetermined.

Residents will be prohibited from smoking within about 20 feet of exterior doorways, and those who repeatedly violate the rule could face eviction.

The housing authority began putting out the word about the new policy earlier this year, opening the discussion at resident meetings and surveying tenants.

Later this month, the housing authority plans to launch an educational campaign about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke. Residents who want to quit the habit also can get free smoking-cessation aids such as patches and lozenges, provided through the agency’s partnership with the American Cancer Society.

The housing authority put off a planned start date in July after studying how other agencies had dealt with the issue. Among the most important lessons was that residents were more agreeable to the change if they had time to prepare and received health information.

“The education campaign is the most important part,” said Lori Mendez, the housing director for the elderly and disabled who has spearheaded the effort. “Residents need to understand the expectations.”

Kids exposed to smoke

Many residents have yet to hear about the change, but so far the new policy has inspired a mix of strong support, ambivalence and anger.

A survey sent to all 6,029 households in January shows that a large majority of tenants support the no-smoking policy. Of the 200 residents who responded, 81 percent said they liked the idea, while 17 percent opposed it, and 2 percent said they had no opinion.

In some cases, smokers decried what they view as a violation of their rights.

“This is my house even though I’m receiving help from SAHA, and I should be able to smoke in my own home if I want to,” one resident wrote.

Another resident who smokes on the balcony suggested forcing residents to go outside would put them at risk.

“It’s dangerous enough at daytime. Understand that you will be putting people’s lives in danger,” the tenant wrote.

But many cheered the idea, and some smokers even welcomed the change as an inducement to help them quit.

“I think it’s really, really great. I want to stop,” said Norma Garcia, 47, who smokes about a pack a day inside her Wheatley Courts apartment on the East Side. “They’re doing something that’s for our own good.”

[Responsibility2nd]

Chris Tatum smokes on the front porch of his Wheatley Courts apartment. Tatum said he tries to avoid smoking inside the apartment, around his stepchildren. Under the prohibition, he wouldn’t even be allowed to smoke there. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net

Norma Garcia, who lives in the Wheatley Courts, smokes in front of her apartment. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net

Norma Garcia, who lives in the Wheatley Courts, smokes in front of her apartment. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net

[1rudeboy]

What can possibly go wrong?

[Responsibility2nd]

[Uncle Ike]

First they came for the druggies, and you cheered because, well, they’re *druggies* and don’t need no steenkin’ rights anyway....

Then they came for the smokers, and you cheered, because smoking is just icky....

Then they came for the fatties, and you cheered, because who really wants to look at all those fat people??

You’re next - cheer about that....

[Road Warrior ‘04]

So, you can't smoke in the apartment and, as I understand it, not outside your apartment. You MUST go to a designated smoking area!

I don't care if this is public housing. It's still their castle! (paid for by us) What a bunch of BS!

[Mrs.Z]

Tobacco yes, but they won’t stop the crack smoking in the buildings.

[Grunthor]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Tobacco (legal) yes, but they won’t stop the crack (illegal) smoking in the buildings.

Just clarifying...

[TaxPayer2000]

A survey sent to all 6,029 households in January shows that a large majority of tenants support the no-smoking policy. Of the 200 residents who responded, 81 percent said they liked the idea, while 17 percent opposed it, and 2 percent said they had no opinion.

LOL! A LARGE majority! of the 200 people who responded! 162 people out of a survey sent to 6,209 households.

[Envisioning]

....public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes

As a smoker I oppose any smoking bans, but, this is NOT their own home. It is PUBLIC housing, government owned. You want to do what you want in YOUR house, get off the government tit and buy your own house.

/rant off

[Grunthor]

First they came for the druggies, and you cheered because, well, it was a druggie that stuck a gun in my face and stole my wallet.

“Then they came for the smokers, and you cheered, because smoking killed both of my grandparents.

“Then they came for the fatties, and you cheered, because who really wants to look at all those fat people??”

Please. No one is coming for the fatties. They’re hard to kidnap.

[Responsibility2nd]

I don’t care if this is public housing. It’s still their castle! (paid for by us) What a bunch of BS!

________________________________________

Don’t contradict yourself. If you and I pay for their “castle”, then you don’t think we have a say in what goes on there?

[Truth29]

"What can possibly go wrong"

Oh yes, let's see some inspector telling the local MS 13 gang bangers to stop smoking. Exchanging gun smoke for tobacco smoke if they are lucky. A machete might also be used.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Gangbangers and illegals won’t be affected by this at all.

[cripplecreek]

Dependency is slavery.

[Grunthor]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[kickonly88]

I’m all for it, the reason being private property rights. The housing authority owns it, they can do as they wish.

[MrB]

I’m all for making the dependent life “not so comfortable”,
so that, perhaps, these folks would look for a better way to live.

[ladyjane]

If you've ever lived in an apartment above a smoker you might feel differently about smoke in a multi-unit building.

I lived for a while in an apartment above a man who it turns out was going through a divorce. He would sit for hours right under my bedroom chain smoking. I couldn't even go into that room. My entire apartment smelled like an ashtray and I had to seal the bedroom off with tape.

You will probably suggest that I should have opened the windows. Right. Chimney effect. Worse.

It's still their castle!

If they want a castle let them go out and get a job and pay for it. I don't want to pay for their castle.

[dfwgator]

If they’re on public assistance, they don’t need to be spending taxpayer money on smokes.